Joe Lieberman: It is REALLY Time for the Democrats to Cut Him Loose
Joe Lieberman has repeatedly proven himself to be opportunistic, shortsighted, and irritatingly sanctimonious. In the past this has been just irritating. More recently, he has adopted increasingly bellicose positions that make him actively dangerous. Tomorrow the Democrats will have an opportunity to dispense with Joe once and for all. According to this report in The Nation Lieberman plans to endorse John McCain for president. As the report points out this is contrary to what Joe said he intended when he ran against Lamont in 2006. Back then he was proclaiming his fealty to the Democrats.
If Lieberman endorses a Republican the Dems should immediately strip him of any and all committee assignments, deprive him of any political or financial support in future campaigns, and in every other possible way treat him as anathema. In fact, they should make it clear that they will do everything necessary to defeat Lieberman in 2012.
The Democrats can't get any legislation through the Senate as it is, so there is nothing to lose. Apparently that is what it takes to get the Dems to act like they have a spine.
__________
P.S.: (Added 17 December) Here is the story from The New York Times confirming Liberman's endorsement.
If Lieberman endorses a Republican the Dems should immediately strip him of any and all committee assignments, deprive him of any political or financial support in future campaigns, and in every other possible way treat him as anathema. In fact, they should make it clear that they will do everything necessary to defeat Lieberman in 2012.
The Democrats can't get any legislation through the Senate as it is, so there is nothing to lose. Apparently that is what it takes to get the Dems to act like they have a spine.
__________
P.S.: (Added 17 December) Here is the story from The New York Times confirming Liberman's endorsement.
Labels: Lieberman
5 Comments:
They would lose the majority by doing that. Why not wait until they pick up a seat or two in '08? Anyhow, given your recent focus on torture, you shouldn't hate McCain too much. He's one of the only Republicans who passionately speaks against it, having been subject to it himself.
Given that the Dems can't get anything though the Senate now, what good is their "majority"? They actually need to be able to invoke cloture and/or override a veto (threatened) and they can't do so.
As for McCain, he knows what it is like to be tortured. He is stron on that dimension but not on much of anything else. And there are those like Edwards and Kuscinich who are resolute on the matter having never been tortured. ...
Lieberman has consistently placed his own ambitions above his party loyalty (I suspect he feels like he might get a VP bid here) and the Dems should cut him loose.
I used to revere McCain until I looked at his biography more closely. While his Vietnam experience is to be respected, his rise to political office isn't at all commendable. Here is a guy who cheated on his wife on multiple occasions and eventually dumped her for the heiress of the Anheuser-Busch corporation which, subsequently, bankrolled his way into office. Moreover, he never even considered running for office until he realized that his career in The Navy hit a dead end-apparently Mr.McCain had big plans for himself. He's just like the rest of the lot-super ambitious, power hungry, and, very likely, easily corruptible. Sorry, I just don't buy into the media image of McCain as this honest, principled, superman.
McCain is actually somewhat reasonable on climate change and campaign finance also. I'm no big fan in general, but he's not that bad. Kucinich regularly says idiotic things. For instance, in response to a question about how he would deal with nuclear proliferation, he blusters some wholly unrealistic crap about how we should just eliminate all of ours. Ideally, sure, but come on. Edwards seems to be the Dems Romney, having not only changed his position on several issues but also having the audacity to criticize others as if they've been less resolute or strong on such issues (e.g., Iraq, health care). And what on earth is he talking about when he babbles on about how special interests won't negotiate their power away, so we have to take it? A nice soundbite, but in practice what does he think will happen? Anyway, I really don't think McCain is much worse than those two, except on social issues, on which he's nuts. In terms of Iraq, I don't think you'll see a markedly different policy from a McCain relative to any of the top three Dems.
Oh, and the majority does give them committee chairmanships and a couple other things. They get to influence spending bills, and other things that have to be passed more than they otherwise would.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home